Insurance Compare
Quickly compare HK insurance products' coverage, premiums, and terms
Select 2-4 products to view coverage and terms differences. Data sourced from public information for reference only.
Compare Prudential Entrust vs Shiyu:Choose funding path first, then compare return and legacy
Use this compare prudential entrust vs shiyu page to evaluate two routes under the same insurer: Entrust (3/5-year pay) and Shiyu (single premium). Decision chain: funding mode -> evidence boundary -> executable actions.
1-minute conclusion
- Compare funding mode first: Entrust uses 3/5-year installment terms while Shiyu is single premium.
- Shiyu core differentiator: About 85% guaranteed cash value at policy inception.
- Lock-in start: Both are publicly disclosed from policy anniversary 10.
- Currency disclosure: Entrust discloses 6 currencies and year-3 conversion; Shiyu needs evidence completion on this dimension.
- IRR conclusion: No deterministic public ranking; normalized dual proposals are required.
6 questions before making a decision
Ask constraints first and returns second to avoid product-first bias.
Why it matters: This sets funding rhythm before return comparison and is the first hard constraint.
Check first: Entrust publicly offers 3/5-year terms, while Shiyu is publicly single premium.
Why it matters: Initial guarantee level changes early liquidity and drawdown tolerance.
Check first: Shiyu brochure states guaranteed cash value at inception is about 85% of single premium.
Why it matters: Currency flexibility directly affects cross-border education, retirement, and allocation execution.
Check first: Entrust discloses 6 currencies with conversion from policy year 3; Shiyu public brochure does not clearly disclose conversion terms.
Why it matters: Different split-availability years directly affect legacy execution timing.
Check first: Shiyu allows split from policy anniversary 5; Entrust split is available after premium term completion.
Why it matters: Entrust FlexIncome and Shiyu successor/contingent-insured tools fit different use cases.
Check first: Entrust FlexIncome starts from year 5; Shiyu publicly discloses successor policyholder and contingent insured tools.
Why it matters: With financing, decision object becomes product plus debt terms, not product only.
Check first: HKMA circular on 2025-11-19 requires financing to be presented separately from policy arrangement; the standard applies to new facilities from 2026-01-01.
Stage1b gap audit
Fix decision-distorting gaps before adding more copy.
| Gap | Observed issue | Reinforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Mixed baseline from cross-insurer templates | Prior drafts inherited other-insurer fields, distorting same-insurer comparison focus. | Rebuilt around one insurer baseline: installment Entrust vs single-premium Shiyu evidence chain. |
| Funding mode and guarantee baseline were mixed | 85% initial guarantee and long-horizon IRR were mixed, creating decision noise. | Added separate table for initial guarantee vs long-horizon return so they are not treated as substitutes. |
| Asymmetric currency disclosure | Entrust has explicit multi-currency and conversion terms, while Shiyu public materials do not provide equivalent disclosure. | Marked this dimension as evidence gap and added pre-sign evidence completion actions. |
| Regulatory timing was error-prone | Illustration cap timing is often miswritten as issue date equals effective date. | Separated timeline explicitly: IA circular listing on 2025-02-28 and Practice Note effective on 2025-07-01. |
| Market freshness was insufficient | Older data failed to represent accelerated savings demand in 2025. | Added Q1-Q3 2025 long-term and participating statistics from IA release on 2026-01-23. |
| IRR ranking language was over-deterministic | Public materials do not provide a normalized dual-product IRR/breakeven matrix. | All winner claims were converted to verification-required with a normalized dual-proposal action chain. |
| Death-benefit floor was not compared explicitly | Users may mix up initial guarantee and long-term return, while missing 105%/101% death-floor differences. | Added a dedicated death-benefit floor dimension and clarified it is not equivalent to breakeven or IRR conclusions. |
| Post-split cooling-off boundary was missing | Prior copy only stated split availability but omitted that split policies have no cooling-off period. | Added post-split no-cooling-off limitation and pre-submission verification actions. |
| Financing-regulation date boundary was incomplete | The page cited 2025-11 review findings but did not mark the 2026-01-01 applicability date for new facilities. | Added HKMA circular boundary that applies to new facilities from 2026-01-01 and prohibits framing financing as return enhancement. |
| Availability of full-year 2025 statistics was not disclosed | Without a publication-status marker, readers may assume full-year 2025 official data is already available. | Added IA page boundary indicating publication expected in 2026-04 and marked full-year conclusions as pending verification. |
Decision chain: funding mode first, evidence checks second, returns last
When both plans share one insurer, key divergence is not brand risk but cashflow structure, guarantee baseline, and execution timing.
Key conclusions (conclusion-evidence-action)
Every conclusion is linked to evidence and next action.
Evidence: Entrust publicly offers 3/5-year terms, while Shiyu is publicly single premium.
Implication: Entrust fits staged cashflow budgets; Shiyu fits immediate deployable capital.
Action: Lock affordable funding mode before comparing returns.
Evidence: Shiyu brochure states guaranteed cash value at policy inception is about 85% of single premium.
Implication: This is not a higher-return claim; it is a higher initial-guarantee structure difference.
Action: Evaluate guaranteed cash-value path separately from total-return path.
Evidence: Entrust discloses 6 currencies and year-3 conversion; Shiyu public brochure lacks equivalent conversion disclosure.
Implication: Missing disclosure should not be interpreted as either unsupported or equivalent support.
Action: Request advisor-provided Shiyu currency/conversion clauses or proposal pages before signing.
Evidence: Shiyu allows split from policy year 5; Entrust split starts after premium term completion.
Implication: Entrust may split earlier under 3-pay setups; under 5-pay setups split timing is closer.
Action: Cross-check premium term options against planned split year.
Evidence: Both Entrust and Shiyu brochures disclose terminal bonus lock-in from policy anniversary 10.
Implication: In this pair, lock-in timing is not the first-order differentiator.
Action: Prioritize funding mode, initial guarantee, and legacy execution path.
Evidence: As of 2026-04, no public normalized matrix exists under identical age/currency/premium assumptions.
Implication: Web-level conclusions can guide direction but cannot replace normalized proposals.
Action: Request dual proposals with base/downside and financing stress tests if relevant.
Mid-page action: get normalized proposals before picking a path
If your budget range is already set, request same-basis dual proposals now (same age, currency, and holding period) and verify each field against this page checklist.
Evidence Table 1: core term comparison
Under one insurer baseline, focus on structural differences and disclosure boundaries.
| Dimension | Entrust | Shiyu (Prime Eternity) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product | Prudential Entrust Multi-Currency Plan | Prime Eternity (Shiyu Wealth) | Prudential Hong Kong product pages and brochures |
| Insurer entity (public) | Prudential Hong Kong Limited | Prudential Hong Kong Limited | Official disclosure on both product pages |
| Premium payment mode | 3-year / 5-year | Single premium | Entrust brochure; Shiyu brochure |
| Guaranteed cash value at inception | No equivalent “85% at inception” statement publicly shown | About 85% of single premium | Shiyu brochure p.6; Entrust public disclosure boundary |
| Publicly disclosed currency coverage | 6 currencies (USD/HKD/RMB/AUD/CAD/GBP) | Public brochure does not clearly list equivalent currency menu | Entrust brochure; evidence gap in Shiyu brochure |
| Currency conversion start | From policy anniversary 3 | Not explicitly disclosed in public brochure | Entrust brochure; Shiyu public boundary |
| Terminal bonus lock-in start | From policy anniversary 10 | From policy anniversary 10 | Lock-in clauses in both brochures |
| Lock/unlock yearly frequency | One lock and one unlock per policy year | One lock request per policy year; each lock 10%-50% with cumulative cap at 50% | Entrust brochure; Prime Eternity brochure (Dividend Lock-in Option) |
| Income/withdrawal feature start | FlexIncome from policy anniversary 5 | No Entrust-equivalent public income clause in brochure | Entrust brochure; Shiyu public boundary |
| Policy split availability | Available after premium term completion | Available from policy anniversary 5 | Entrust brochure; Shiyu brochure p.16 |
| Legacy control tools | Change of life assured (from first policy anniversary) | Successor policyholder, contingent insured, customized death benefit payout | Entrust brochure; Shiyu brochure |
| Policy loan cap (public) | Up to 80% of relevant cash-value base | Up to 80% of guaranteed cash value | Entrust brochure; Shiyu brochure p.16 |
| Public death-benefit floor | At least 105% of total premiums due and paid (minus withdrawn bonus cash value and outstanding loans/interest) | At least 101% of single premium (minus outstanding loans/interest) | Entrust brochure; Prime Eternity brochure (Death Benefit) |
| Cooling-off after split | Split policies have no cooling-off period | Split policies have no cooling-off period | Entrust brochure; Prime Eternity brochure (Wealth-Split Option) |
| Public IRR/breakeven comparability | No normalized dual-product matrix | No normalized dual-product matrix | Public evidence gap as of 2026-04 |
| Non-guaranteed benefit disclosure | Bonus/crediting values are non-guaranteed | Non-guaranteed bonuses may increase or decrease | Risk disclosures in both brochures |
Evidence Table 2: feature timeline
Translate features into executable timeline nodes to avoid timing mismatch.
| Timeline point | Entrust | Shiyu action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy inception (Year 0-1) | Enter 3/5-year premium path and establish payment rhythm | Single premium is completed with about 85% guaranteed value at inception | Both brochures |
| Around policy anniversary 3 | Currency conversion becomes available | No equivalent public conversion timing disclosed | Entrust brochure; Shiyu public boundary |
| Around policy anniversary 3 (bonus mechanics) | Non-guaranteed reversionary bonus may start being declared (at insurer discretion) | Non-guaranteed terminal dividend may be paid from year 3 (at insurer discretion) | Entrust brochure; Prime Eternity brochure (Bonus/Dividend) |
| Around policy anniversary 5 | FlexIncome becomes available | Policy split becomes available | Brochure clauses of both products |
| Around policy anniversary 10 | Terminal bonus lock-in starts | Terminal bonus lock-in starts | Lock-in clauses in both brochures |
| After premium-term completion | Wealth-Split can be executed for legacy restructuring | Continue legacy and withdrawal arrangements on one funded policy | Entrust brochure and Shiyu feature descriptions |
| After split approval | No cooling-off for split policies; certain designations are cancelled and must be reconfigured | No cooling-off for split policies, so beneficiary and legacy settings should be confirmed before submission | Both brochures (Wealth-Split Option terms) |
| Financing scenario (any stage) | If financing is used, debt terms must be assessed separately | Single-premium setup often triggers financing; negative-carry stress tests should be front-loaded | HKMA premium-financing guidance and 2025 review |
Evidence Table 3: return disclosure boundaries
Separate usable conclusions from verification-required claims.
| Metric | Entrust | Shiyu public view | Strength | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normalized IRR | No normalized public matrix | No normalized public matrix | Medium | Do not provide deterministic winners without normalized dual proposals. |
| Normalized breakeven year | Illustrative only, not directly comparable | Illustrative only, not directly comparable | Medium | Requires same-age, same-currency, same-payment-basis proposals. |
| Illustration-rate caps | From 2025-07-01 capped at 6.0% HKD/MOP and 6.5% non-HKD | From 2025-07-01 capped at 6.0% HKD/MOP and 6.5% non-HKD | High | Older high-assumption illustrations should not be used as current baseline. |
| Comparability of 85% initial guarantee | No equivalent public statement | Explicitly discloses about 85% guaranteed value at inception | High | This metric indicates initial guarantee only, not superior long-term return. |
| Death-benefit floor | At least 105% of total premiums due and paid (with deduction rules) | At least 101% of single premium (with deduction rules) | High | This is a death-scenario floor, not a cashflow breakeven or IRR conclusion. |
| Non-guaranteed bonus realization | Depends on future investment performance and bonus policy | Depends on future investment performance and bonus policy | High | Review base and downside scenarios; avoid treating one path as commitment. |
| Post-split reversibility | No cooling-off period for split policies | No cooling-off period for split policies | High | Complete beneficiary and legacy-setting checks before split to avoid “split first, fix later” mistakes. |
| Financing carry safety buffer | No product-level universal threshold | No product-level universal threshold | Medium | Financing cases must include dual stress tests (higher rates + lower returns). |
Evidence Table 4: evidence gaps to close
Gaps are not failures; they are mandatory pre-sign tasks.
| Topic | Current evidence | Why it matters | Next action | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shiyu currency and conversion clauses | Public brochure does not provide Entrust-equivalent currency/conversion disclosure. | Cross-currency households may overestimate future allocation flexibility if ignored. | Request proposal pages showing currency and conversion clauses and archive screenshots. | To be verified |
| IA full-year 2025 long-term provisional statistics | IA statistics page states “provisional statistics for 2025 are expected in April 2026”; as of 2026-04-08 full-year release is not yet posted. | Extrapolating full-year values prematurely can overstate market momentum and product availability trends. | Use official Q1-Q3 2025 figures as the current ceiling and refresh market conclusions after full-year publication. | No reliable public data yet |
| Entrust minimum threshold (public) | Public brochure does not provide a single clearly quotable minimum premium baseline. | Minimum threshold affects executable budget segmentation. | Confirm minimum nominal amount and minimum premium in proposal documents. | To be verified |
| Normalized IRR/breakeven matrix | No public normalized dual-product matrix as of 2026-04. | This is the core evidence for winner claims. | Request dual proposals under same currency, age, and payment assumptions. | No reliable public data |
| Financing negative-carry trigger thresholds | Regulatory risk warnings exist, but no product-level universal threshold is published. | Unclear thresholds increase margin-call and forced reduction risk. | Run dual stress tests: +2% borrowing rate and reduced return assumptions. | To be verified |
| Post-split tax and cross-border compliance | Product public materials do not provide case-specific tax determinations. | Cross-border families may face unexpected cash burden if tax constraints are ignored. | Obtain tax advisor review before split/withdrawal execution. | Requires external professional advice |
Evidence Table 5: regulatory guardrails
These are hard execution constraints, not optional reading.
| Rule | Key requirement | Comparison impact | Action | Date marker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GL28 (benefit illustration) | Sets standards for long-term policy benefit illustrations and disclosure clarity. | IRR and breakeven comparisons must use normalized assumptions. | Save both base and downside illustration pages when comparing proposals. | effective 2019-09-23 |
| GL29 (cooling-off period) | Cooling-off is 21 calendar days from earlier delivery of policy or cooling-off notice. | Directly affects post-sign cancellation window and initial risk control. | Record delivery timestamp and backplan the deadline on day one. | effective 2019-09-23 |
| GL30 (financial needs analysis) | FNA is required before recommendation to assess goals, affordability, and risk profile. | Comparisons without FNA are not execution-ready under regulatory expectations. | Verify FNA assumptions match proposal assumptions before signing. | effective 2019-09-23 |
| IA Practice Note (illustration-rate caps) | Illustration rate caps for participating policies: 6.0% HKD/MOP and 6.5% non-HKD. | Older high-assumption illustrations should not remain active comparison baselines. | Confirm proposals are generated under the regime effective on 2025-07-01. | listed 2025-02-28, effective 2025-07-01 |
| IA levy arrangement (long-term policies) | Levy is 0.1% of premium with HKD 100 annual cap per policy. | Ignoring levy understates total cost projections. | List levy separately in proposals instead of netting with discounts. | effective since 2018-01-01 (retrieved 2026-04) |
| HKMA premium financing guidance | Borrowing risk should be fully disclosed and not framed as guaranteed enhancement. | In financing scenarios, debt terms can dominate product differences. | Run financing affordability and exit checks before product ranking. | consumer page updated 2024-01-24 |
| HKMA 2025 circular (new-facility applicability) | The circular applies to new premium-financing facilities entered on or after 2026-01-01 and requires financing to be presented separately from policy arrangement. | In pre-sale communication, policy purchase and financing cannot be treated as a single bundled action. | Request separate facility letter and policy proposal, and verify the financing effective-date regime. | issued 2025-11-19, applies to new facilities from 2026-01-01 |
| HKMA 2025 financing-policy review | Clarifies financing should not be framed as a return-enhancement strategy and requires disclosure of rate fluctuation, early-surrender, and payment-mismatch risks. | Showing only low-rate base scenarios may mislead customers and understate downside under financing. | Run dual stress tests (higher rates + lower returns) and retain signed risk-disclosure records for financed cases. | issue date 2025-11-19 |
Evidence Table 6: market and execution signals
Market tempo determines whether old proposals are stale.
| Signal | Datapoint | Decision implication | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong long-term in-force premiums (Q1-Q3 2025) | HKD 554.1bn (+36.6% YoY) | Market expansion means older illustration baselines become stale faster. | IA press release 2026-01-23 |
| Non-linked individual new office premiums (Q1-Q3 2025) | HKD 251.5bn (+55.2% YoY) | Accelerating competition requires strict version-date alignment in proposal comparisons. | IA press release 2026-01-23 |
| Participating business new office premiums (Q1-Q3 2025) | HKD 226.3bn (+60.1% YoY) | Participating products remain mainstream, so non-guaranteed boundaries must be front-loaded. | IA press release 2026-01-23 |
| Long-term claims and benefits paid (Q1-Q3 2025) | HKD 279.4bn, including HKD 141.6bn lapsation/surrender benefits | Shows early-exit cost is a frequent real-world scenario and surrender risk should be front-loaded. | IA press release 2026-01-23 (note 1) |
| Annual baseline (full-year 2024 long-term business) | In-force total revenue premium HKD 537.4bn; individual life contributed 85.4% | Provides a verifiable prior-year baseline for interpreting 2025 acceleration. | IA Annual Long Term Business Statistics (updated 2026-01-08) |
| Illustration-rate cap regime shift | Circular listed on 2025-02-28; caps of 6.0% / 6.5% effective from 2025-07-01 | Proposals from different issuance windows may not be directly comparable. | IA circular list + Practice Note |
| Financing-policy review signal (2025-11) | HKMA issued review observations and expected standards in a high-rate environment, highlighting strong rate-and-scenario sensitivity | Especially relevant for lump-sum scenarios, preventing financing from being treated as default return enhancer. | HKMA review circular 2025-11-19 |
| Publication status of full-year 2025 provisional stats | IA statistics page notes publication expected in 2026-04; full-year release not posted as of 2026-04-08 | Prevents treating Q1-Q3 acceleration as a confirmed full-year fact. | IA quarterly statistics page (market_7_2025) |
Method and applicability boundaries
Clarifies what is directly usable and what requires evidence completion.
Data window: up to 2026-04-08. Tier-1 sources prioritized (official insurer materials, IA, HKMA).
As of 2026-04-08, IA still marks full-year 2025 provisional statistics as expected in 2026-04, so full-year conclusions are treated as pending verification.
Comparison order: funding mode -> feature timing -> guaranteed/non-guaranteed boundaries -> return verification.
Expression rule: insufficient public evidence is explicitly marked as “to be verified”.
Use when comparing installment and single-premium tracks within one insurer.
Not for deterministic final-return winner claims.
Minimum additional step: normalized dual proposals + base/downside + financing stress tests if applicable.
Evidence Table 7: risk matrix
Risks are presented as trigger-impact-mitigation triplets.
| Risk | Trigger | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Funding-mode mismatch | Choosing single premium when budget needs installments, or vice versa. | Cashflow pressure rises materially in early policy years. | Run a 3-year household cashflow stress test before selecting product. |
| Misreading 85% baseline as long-term return dominance | Focusing on inception guarantee while ignoring long-term non-guaranteed path. | Long-term return expectation drifts and raises later adjustment costs. | Show guaranteed-value and total-value curves side by side. |
| Treating death-benefit floor as breakeven guarantee | Equating 105%/101% death-benefit floor with living-scenario return outcomes. | Creates incorrect expectations for mid-term withdrawals and surrender cashflows. | Model death, surrender, and withdrawal cashflows separately. |
| Incorrect currency-capability assumptions | Assuming undisclosed Shiyu terms are equivalent to Entrust. | Later conversion execution may fail or create opportunity cost. | Collect and archive clause/proposal screenshots before signing. |
| Incorrect split-timing assumptions | Ignoring Entrust dependence on premium-term completion or Shiyu year-5 threshold. | Legacy execution is delayed and allocation plans slip. | Add an explicit “earliest split year” column in proposal checklist. |
| Irreversible errors after split due to no cooling-off | Submitting split requests before beneficiary and legacy-setting checks are completed. | No cooling-off reversal after split, leading to materially higher correction costs. | Run a pre-split joint checklist for beneficiary, successor owner, and contingent-life designations. |
| Treating non-guaranteed values as commitments | Using one-path illustration without downside scenario. | Education or retirement cashflow gaps may emerge. | Require both base and downside outputs. |
| Negative carry and margin-call risk under financing | Rising rates or lower return assumptions. | Can trigger top-up, policy reduction, or forced surrender. | Run dual stress tests: +2% borrowing rate and return haircut. |
| Bundling financing with policy recommendation | Presenting financing as default path or return-enhancement strategy during sales. | Conflicts with supervisory expectations and masks repayment stress under rising rates. | Require separate facility letter and policy proposal, with standalone risk-disclosure acknowledgment. |
| Cooling-off timing errors | No timestamp record for policy/notice delivery. | Missing cancellation window increases correction cost. | Create 21-day calendar reminders on delivery day. |
| Understated total cost (IA levy omitted) | Comparing premium and discount only, without levy line item. | Budget drift distorts premium sustainability assessment. | Model levy separately at 0.1% with HKD 100 annual cap. |
Action guidance by scenario
Do not ask “which is best” first; ask “which path is executable”.
Best first step: Start with Entrust 3/5-year setup, then evaluate Shiyu as lump-sum guarantee-baseline alternative.
Why: Core constraint is cashflow rhythm rather than one-time illustration optics.
Watchouts:
- Avoid pseudo-annualizing lump-sum plans for distorted comparisons.
- Check whether Entrust split timing matches your legacy timeline.
Best first step: Validate Shiyu 85% baseline and year-5/year-10 features first, then test whether Entrust better fits future cashflow.
Why: Key concern is controllability after one-time capital deployment.
Watchouts:
- 85% guarantee is not equivalent to full principal risk elimination.
- If financing is involved, run negative-carry stress tests before decision.
Best first step: Use Entrust as currency-flex baseline and request missing Shiyu currency/conversion clauses.
Why: Under asymmetric disclosure, evidence completion matters more than early commitment.
Watchouts:
- Do not interpret non-disclosure as either definitely absent or definitely present.
- Archive clause screenshots to avoid later wording disputes.
Best first step: Compare target year against “Shiyu split at year 5” and “Entrust split after premium term”.
Why: Legacy paths are mainly timing-and-condition decisions, not single-point return ranking.
Watchouts:
- Change of insured and contingent-insured setup are not identical legal actions.
- Verify documentation and approval requirements first.
Best first step: Stop slogan comparisons and request normalized dual proposals with version dates.
Why: No publicly reproducible dual-product normalized matrix exists.
Watchouts:
- Proposals from different vintages cannot be directly compared.
- Review both base and downside scenarios.
Minimum executable checklist before signing
- Decide funding path first: installment (Entrust) or single premium (Shiyu).
- Normalize dual proposals by age, currency, sum assured, and holding period.
- Record version date and document code on proposal cover.
- Show guaranteed-value and total-value paths separately.
- Validate Entrust milestones: year-3 conversion, year-5 FlexIncome, year-10 lock-in.
- Validate Shiyu milestones: 85% baseline, year-5 split, year-10 lock-in.
- Check death-benefit floors separately: Entrust at least 105%, Shiyu at least 101%.
- For missing Shiyu disclosures (currency/conversion), request clause or proposal pages.
- Include 80% loan-cap assumptions for both products in stress tests.
- If financing is involved, assess loan-to-own-resources and prepayment clauses first.
- Run dual stress tests: +2% borrowing rate and lowered return assumptions.
- Keep financing materials separate from policy proposals and verify post-2026-01-01 new-facility rule alignment.
- If planning a split, confirm there is no cooling-off for split policies and run one-shot beneficiary/legacy checks.
- Confirm proposal follows post-2025-07-01 illustration cap regime.
- Verify GL30 FNA completion and consistency with proposal assumptions.
- Record GL29 cooling-off start timestamp and set 21-day reminders.
- List IA levy (0.1%, HKD 100 annual cap) separately in budget sheets.
- As of 2026-04-08, do not present full-year 2025 long-term data as final (official full-year release pending).
- Set completion deadlines for all verification-required items before final signing.
Frequently asked questions (16)
Focused on practical decision questions, not glossary filler.
Sources and update policy
All core conclusions are source-traceable with explicit date markers.
- Prudential Entrust product page (Hong Kong)
Used for: Official entry and baseline feature frame for Entrust
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- Prudential Entrust brochure
Used for: 3/5-year terms, 6 currencies, year-3 conversion, year-5 FlexIncome, year-10 lock-in, 105% death floor, and no cooling-off for split policies
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- Prudential Prime Eternity product page
Used for: Single-premium positioning and legacy tool frame
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- Prudential Prime Eternity brochure
Used for: 85% baseline guarantee, year-5 split, year-10 lock-in, successor/contingent tools, 80% loan cap
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- Prudential Prime Eternity brochure (English)
Used for: 101% death floor, dividend lock-in 10%-50% (cumulative cap 50%), and no cooling-off for split policies
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- IA GL28 (benefit illustration)
Used for: Illustration and disclosure boundary rules
Date: effective 2019-09-23
- IA GL29 (cooling-off period)
Used for: 21-calendar-day cooling-off timing rule
Date: effective 2019-09-23
- IA GL30 (financial needs analysis)
Used for: Regulatory baseline for FNA actions
Date: effective 2019-09-23
- IA Circulars 2025 listing page
Used for: Confirm Practice Note listing date at 2025-02-28
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- IA Practice Note on illustration-rate caps
Used for: Caps at 6.0% HKD/MOP and 6.5% non-HKD, effective 2025-07-01
Date: effective 2025-07-01
- IA Financial Arrangements (levy)
Used for: Long-term policy levy at 0.1% with HKD 100 annual cap
Date: retrieved 2026-04
- IA provisional statistics for first three quarters of 2025
Used for: Long-term, non-linked, and participating premium growth datapoints
Date: published 2026-01-23
- IA Annual Long Term Business Statistics
Used for: Full-year 2024 long-term baseline (537.4bn and 85.4% individual-life share)
Date: updated 2026-01-08
- IA 2025 long-term quarterly statistics page
Used for: Boundary note that full-year 2025 provisional statistics are expected in 2026-04
Date: last update marker 2026-01-23
- HKMA premium financing consumer page
Used for: Risk definition and execution warnings for premium financing
Date: updated 2024-01-24
- HKMA 2025 review circular on premium financing
Used for: Applicability from 2026-01-01 for new facilities, plus separation and risk-disclosure standards
Date: issued 2025-11-19; applies to new facilities from 2026-01-01
Methodology & Sources
E-E-A-T notes: methodology, sources, and author details.
Methodology
We normalize by currency, payment term, and sample age using official brochures/proposals. IRR and returns are illustrative (non-guaranteed) and used for relative comparison only.
Authoritative Sources
- Insurance Authority (HK) Annual Report
- Insurance Authority (HK) Statistics
- AIA Hong Kong
- Manulife Hong Kong
- Prudential Hong Kong
- FWD Hong Kong
- Sun Life Hong Kong
For other insurers, please refer to their official sites and latest product materials.
Author
Author: Su Jiang (GXBIBI research team). Content is based on public materials and policy terms.
Need Professional Analysis?
Everyone's financial situation and goals are different. Contact us for personalized advice.
Scan to add WeChat for consultation
• Free product proposal
• One-on-one Q&A
• HK visit booking assistance
Calibration note: deterministic statements are limited to first-source verifiable facts; all other fields are marked for verification.